tv [untitled] August 13, 2010 8:00pm-8:30pm PST
because it's removal of these plants would be continuously on us and half of the plants will be located on the other side of the land, we need to incorporate some considerations as far as the costs so it won't be burdened on the residents continuously. thank you. >> thank you. is there additional public comment? if not, public comment is closed. the board of commissioners would bring in -- >> commissioner? >> thank you for the presentation. i thought it was extremely thorough. and in particular very instructive in regards to the tide lands trust issue which is something we haven't had occasion to deal with in the past very often because it deals with submerged lands and i think it was very important that it
mentions discretion over recreational uses which i think is an important feature subject to, of course, the authority of the attorney general of the state, california state lands commission. also the fact that recreational uses should be regional in their scope and this is a factor. those are interesting things to look at because certainly there are many, many good things about this project and one of them is the fact that it creates a lot of public open space and particularly recreational uses which are something that we are in great need of in san francisco. i thought the analysis was very thorough. >> is my mike not on? it says mike on. couldn't hear me? should i repeat? >> i think so. >> i'm sorry.
>> different system than we are used to. >> is it on now? let me try to summarize this and in a shorter time the7o&econd time around. i thought it was particularly instructive the tide lands trust information in there. so it's because it's an issue regarding previously submerged lands that we don't have occasion to deal with as often. and i thought it was very important that it talked about the discretion that the tide lands trust has over uses, particularly recreational ones which are very important. and there was an emphasis on recreational uses that had a regioy0yl aspect to them. i think these are importantkp things and i'm glad that that f-+ñ$r the other parts of the report. i wanted to bring that up in particular because i think it's an area that we may not have been as familiar with as some of the other uses that are historically analyzed in
environmental impact reportsx in acreage for. thank you. >> thank you. commissioner moore? commissioner moore: for the record i would like to close i also sit on the treasure island, have since the beginning, and when i was appointed to the planning commission, the city attorney deemed that there was no conflict. and i do speakv and have been in strong support of the project. have watched it closely grow. and my comments today really are solely directed towards the e.i.r., the draft e.i.r. in front of us. let me first say that i'm very appreciative of the broad range of commentsñt%zrmji. with me it resonates quite well it asks for an additional two weeks of public comments. the issues are quite complicated. i do think while the two projects are not quite
comparable, the extent of issues which do rise to the surface require more time. in that direction. comments in writing. i have a number, but one thing i would like to put to public record today is the fact that the required?@ environmental security alternative is really not in this document. i'm surprised. the project is very strong and i think it should have dared to indeed address the environment. throughout the years of creating this project there has been a strong emphasis on green, on the truly green neighborhood of san francisco. the record shows during the scoping process, the documents pointed out the superior alternative would be one that would plan for enough defensity to support a robust public transit system, basic serving
retail would minimize cars. i can quote our former director of san francisco environment, bloom felled, very eloquently in this scope in comments indicates the e.i.r. to include a minimum impact alternative instead of less intensive development attorney. -- alternative. one of the challenges here is to balance high density with a decrease in cars. and not use parking as an argument for economic feasibility. i regret that and i strongly urge that the e.i.r. indeed look that with the challenge it pose. i think if we want to be truly a green neighborhood, we need to be able to go through the motions to examine how we can do that with an emphasis on robust transportation network. i want to leave it i think with that and i am in support of the number of comments which were
made by people in the audience. >> thank you. commissioner. olague. commissioner olague: i would support going beyond that because many people who are -- this isn't the only issue out there where this -- this isn't the only e. irkts r. that people are currently reviewing. we are also in the middle of the draft housing element review. which we extended to the end of the month. i think it would only be fair to extend the comment period on this project also. to allow for the commission as well as the public to look at it some more. i'll submit most of my comments in writing. the overwhelm thing that sort of struck me would be the -- an alternative -- i feel should be provided. it's dined of along the lines of what commissioner moore said.
i'm focused on the parking piece that would look at an alternative to what we have here which would see a reduction in parking, project alternative with a reduction in parking. so i would like to see something like that provided in the future. there's so much rhetoric around sustainability we have a.b. 32 and s.b. 375, mandates coming from the federal government as well as the state government that is directing i think local planning efforts to consider a reduction in carbon emissions and it seems to me that given that focus or that -- we should be looking at an alternative that would provide at least .5 or something, some reduction in parking.
again i'll submit most of my comments in writing and i do support an extension. >> thank you. board member chiang. >> thank you. i thank the member of the public for sharing your input with us today and i also want to thank members of the division of the planning for preparing the report. i will be submitting written comments but wanted to bring up two subjects that come up in my mind as i went through the e.i.r. the first one is on transportation. it appears all the topics and all the impact being analyzed i think the area of transportation really suffered most impact. out of this 60-some impact, stated in the report, over 35 or 38 are considered significant and unavoidable. and the mitigation measure
suggested the one mitigation measure that was suggested for -and avoidable impact for 38 of them happens to be the extend -- to extend transit service, ntr-2. and the report also stated that funding for extended time of service are not identified and secured and therefore its implementation must be considered at this time. i think we all understand that given this bunt -- budget of the city and budget of muni. but i wish that because of the totality of the impact and so many of them, i just wish that planning staff would consider ending more information as far as alternatives as to how we can or possibilities of how we can -- transit service can be
extended. would it be a function of the soon to be newly created treasure island transportation management agency which is supposed to be appointed by the board of supervisors? will it be one of the responsibility of the transportation management agency to oversee and guide us in the future in developing policies, mitigation measures, and how we can afford it. maybe we can also consider giving some options so that we as well as member of the public can look into -- can understand what are the possibilities because the impacts are quite immense. i really like to see some alternatives being suggested or options into how these mitigation measures can be funded. the second area i would like to bring up is public -- in the public service session. i have always been keen about asking about emergency services because of the unique location of the island and study across state and all of us know bay
bridge is the only emergency access to and from san francisco . i fear that that could be a little more adequate information in terms of how we mitigate the measures because certainly the increase in population over tenfold from what it is today between now and the build out of the project will increase demand in public services. i'm specifically referring to the analysis for fire department, we are looking at natural disasters, emergency medical services. the e.i.r. talk about the new fire station. i think that's something that needs to be done but i would like to have more adequate information in terms of mitigation measures because i think purely because of the population increase the impact
is not insignificant or less significant. as member of the public have mentioned there are--- in the earthquake zone. there are many natural disasters that can happen as the population increase, and i would like to see mitigation measures being suggested in terms of how we deal with these situations. >> thank you. board member elberling. >> thank you. first i do agree that an extension of the comment period would make sense. this clearly is a very complex, technical document and if the organizations that are most able to provide expert comment on it feel they need an additional two weeks to do that, i really think we would all benefit from that input. on the document, reading reminds
me of when back in the late 1980's an organization i was a member of that sued the city on the downtown plan settled with them and one of the settlement provisions was that e.i.r.'s should be easy to understand for lay people. as i was reading this document, i got the distinct impression that that vision has been lost. it's very much a document written by consultants and experts and engineers for other consultants and experts and engineers. our hope had been the summary would really embody the essence of the story about the project. and i don't find that adds to the story here. this project, of course, is creating a whole new neighborhood, actually the size of a small city. and a uniquely, physically isolated location in the bay, in
the city of san francisco. that makes it very different than the other similarly scaled projects of mission bay and hunters point shipyard where there are neighborhoods right next to them, literally, physically to support them. and in my mind that's a critical thing that really is crucial when considering the environmental consequences of what we are doing. i have looked to find out details of the population of this future new small city we are building in the bay. and i could find a number of 18,000-some in the public services section but i couldn't find anything else about who they might be in that location. looking around you could find the school-aged population, but i couldn't find a preschool population, i couldn't find a senior pope pew lation, i didn't see estimates -- population, i didn't see estimates for lower
income households or housing. i couldn't get a handle on who is going to live there. i also could not find, although it problem-l exists, where they would work. i was really curious how many would be working in east bay, for example. one of the major things about mission bay we learned is many mission bay residents work in the south bay. that was not in the e.i.r., believe me, when it was done 15 years ago. and i'm curious to what extent many of the t.i. residents may in fact be working in east bay. was this very consequential for the e.i.r.? there's probably an estimate, i couldn't find it. but out of that i think there is a crucial missing overarching mitigation for the whole project that really needs to be stated as mitigation and it's an important one to guide its long-term development over the next 20 to 30 years which is
that the project should minimize the necessaryity for residents to travel off island, for their everyday needs and lives. we have to, in other words, include on the island as much of the facilities and services as feasible that residents routinely need. because otherwise they will have to go to -- on to the bridge or ferry or something to come to the mainland. i'm using an example noted in the document but not quantified is childcare. all working parents are going to have to have arrangements for childcare. if it's not on the island, they are going to have to go off the island to do that. and it will almost certainly drive a car to do that. that's an obvious example of something that we have to be sure that there is the most
adequate childcare you have ever seen in a master plan san francisco neighborhood. and that concept is not in this document, although clearly it has an environmental impact. in looking at other such everyday necessaryities, it's really hard to project now looking years down the road how those 18,000 people, what they will need. obviously projects adapt. we can't figure it all out in advance now. and the program that's specified here in terms of square footage of this and that may be adequate or may not. but there's always the opportunity for mid course corrections. these massive projects almost always have a major amendments and new work done 10 to 15 years down the road. i'm sure whoever is in charge of the project at that time can take this into account if we have laid that initial
groundwork that tells them to be sure to minimize the needs of residents to travel off the island. one particular detail i couldn't find in the document at all and i can't find in the program is public assembly. there are all kinds of reasons that residents need to assemble in groups in order to do things. there is nothing in our program, and i ask, we don't have any facilities specifically in our development program today. i think that's a glaring omission. it's needed. i wanted, though, to focus on one everyday thing that in particular stands out in my mind. which is communities of faith need places to gather on fridays, saturdays, or sundays, and various holy days respectively throughout the year to share their faith. and when i asked where can there
be -- could there be a church on treasure island? where would congregations of any description gather? there is no provision for that. it hasn't been included. i asked if some organization could buy a piece of land and build a church and basically the answer was no. i really -- i'm a secular person, but i understand clearly that communities of faith are really vital parts of building real cities and real neighborhoods. to exclude that almost -- but to exclude it de facto is there's something i really think is very inappropriate. in an environmental sense, of course, if we do not accommodate them on the island, they will be driving on friday, saturdays, and sundays to various places elsewhere. but even beyond that, we will lose the resource of their good
energies to building our neighborhood and i don't think it's right. there is, of course, a church on the island now. it's a christian church, but it's a church. when i looked at the historic section, i couldn't find a church in the e.i.r. i couldn't find a single mention of the treasure island church. i tried to understand this. the historic methodology was the document relies on the navy's evaluation of historic resources for everything before 1947. and just kind of includes that as if it's a done deal. but as it notes, the navy's methodology is not the same as the city's. that the city practices under our planning requirements and so on. and -- but it only applies those new standards to buildings built after 1947. so the treasure island church because it existed before 1947
just doesn't get considered. it's like it doesn't exist. the navy didn't identify this as a historic resource. in looking at all those issues, and public assembly, and so on i was really struck with the fact that that church obviously played an important role in the history of the island all through ther-ea of world war ii, korean war, vietnam war. it was a very central focus of community for the military personnel who are certainly a part of the history of treasure island and san francisco. and i really find its omission inexplicable in my mind. i just want it noted. the navy assessment cannot be relied on as satisfactory for our local approval process. we have our own standards. and they should be applied to the pre--1947 buildings as well as the post-1947 buildings.
perhaps that can help solve at least part of the problem that i referred to earlier. thank you. >> thank you. commissioner sugaya. >> i guess the main issue i look at treasure island frankly is the transportation issue. taking a step back i think many people need to understand this is an environmental document. and the role of the ceqa is looking at alternatives and impacts and mitigation. if you just look at the transportation area, which i think is the number one issue with treasure island, there's 141 pages of section 4-e of the review, this section and compare this with other documents we have produced as a city, this is the most comprehensive look getting on and off the island, whether it's through water
taxies or hydrofoil or mass transit or the future. i think if we take a step back and look at this document that has been very well prepared when it comes to the transportation, which surprised me, in addition to that we have a unique opportunity where it is an island. if you look at hong kong island and venice, both of them are islands, how do you get on and off? venice is one area where you look at the future of the environment, where you work -- look in venice during parts of the year high tide and low tide it floods st. mark's square in those areas. but i think if you also look at the document here, someone brought the issue about global warming and the issues of global warming and tides and next 100 years or so how many feet it will go up, or you look at 100-year flood area, i think the document address that is adequately.
the seismic issue, if you look at the density of the north part of treasure island, has the least development on north knot side regarding density, i thinkle' have some soccer or field there. i think we need to focus here, people say, well, this is a very tough document. well, part of the issue is our planning code is the most comprehensive planning code in the world at this time because people have voted it in and the board and certain sections. you can't make it any simpler than it is now because the way the rules and regulations are set up. if you look at the adequacy, i want to turn specifically with the comments about is this considered adequate. does it address all the alternatives? i didn't hear any public comment at this time that leads me to believe we haven't addressed or the alternatives or adequacy of this. for disclosure i serve on the restoration advisory board back in 1986 to about 1989. dianne feinstein appointed me to that r.a.b.
then serve under the navy, i guess, in the city along with hunters point, also the presidio. it is the environmental issues here with hazardous waste, i am not worried about. the underground tanks have been removed. we have the oversight of the water resources control board and state toxic along bcdc also controls the tide, the 100 feet where it comes in and out. i think the question for us to look at here, if you want to add another two weeks to cover public comment, what is dimp with this e.i.r. versus other e.i.r.'s we have done in the city? i didn't hear any public testimony that has led me to believe that we need to -- any additional information. whether board member ebber ling -- e -- elberling is right or not with the church, i don't remember any time that we have to address the-sably issues in any other e.i.r.'s. i don't disagree maybe we should
look at faith-based facilities being there, but that's -- the treasure island plan itself, they can negotiate some sort of rental there, that's a separate document. regarding the e.i.r. with the transportation and the environment and some of the alternatives, again i'm going back to the role of the e.i.r., have we looked at the alternatives? if we looked -- i think we have adequately looked at the alternatives. we know we have -- there's mitigation issues. but going back again, the public should understand, this is a document to look. how do we look at the alternatives? >> a couple of things. >> i forgot you were sharing a mike here. >> i also got the shortest seat. anyway.
i'm a little taller than i really am here. in any case, i'd like to support the two-week extension. i would like to make a motion to do that. i can't remember how we do this -- >> i was about to say that one of the few prerogatives of the chair. i have discussed it with board chair owen and we have two weeks additional until, if my check of the calendar is correct, september 8. >> thank you. i have additional comments i'll submit in writing and not take up more time. i thank mr. elberling with his observation with respect to the navy's evaluation. and since my area of expertise happens to be in that direction, some of my comments will be focused on that as well as perhaps transportation and other land use. thank you. >> very good. thank you. the other comments i was going
to make although i will probably submit it in writing as well, one of the reasons that i felt and agreed with a number of the speakers, including commissioners and board members regarding a two-week extension, is the fact that although this has different situations than what we just went into with hunters point, it has very serious implications to the city and certainly an additional two weeks or 60 days is not out of line. here rather than being a superfund site, which was one of the major situations at hunters point, we had a totally different area not connected to the land other than by very tenuous transportation roads. what i'm concerned about is the
density of the project as it's proposed. density transportation services are intimately linked. i'm not positive in my mind that that linkage has been properly explored or considered. all of the other environmental acts as far as cutting down on greenhouse gas emissions, everything else involved with that area of the environment, i know has been looked at but i think they will become at least in my mind more serious when we get to this 15, 20 or longer buildout of the project itself. and i'm not totally convinced